Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 416 (ALL)

Matbunnisa v. State of U. P.

2024-02-07

SAURABH LAVANIA

body2024
JUDGMENT Saurabh Lavania, J. Heard Sri. Faiz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4/Gaon Sabha concerned. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 08.01.2010 passed by the respondent No. 3/Collector, District Balrampur in Case No. 59 instituted under Section 198(4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short "Act of 1950") as also the order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the respondent No. 2/Commissioner Devi Patan Manda Gonda in Revision No. 00034/2010, Computerized Case No. C201008000000034 (Matbunnisa v. State of U.P.) instituted under Section 333 of the Act of 1950. The petitioner has also sought the consequential relief. 3. Brief facts of the case, which are relevant for the purposes of disposal of this petition, are to the effect that Lekhpal of the area concerned i.e. Village Nanhuwapur, Tehsil- Tulsipur, District- Balrampur suo-moto prepared a report with regard to Gata No. 398M/0.320 Hectare, Gata No. 1168/0.084 Hectare, Gata No. 1435/0.104 Hectare, Gata No. 1287M/0.057 Hectare recorded as Naveen Parti in revenue records as also in relation to Gata No. 1387/0.112 Hectare and Gata No. 1398M/0.275 Hectare recorded as Banjar in revenue records and recommended the name of three persons namely Sita Devi w/o Vishwa Nath, Sansaarmadi s/o Bhondu and Matbunnisa/petitioner w/o Saide for providing plantation lease (). This report also says that Gram Pradhan is in enmity with these persons, as such, Gram Sabha has not made any proposal in this regard. 4. The aforesaid report of Lekhpal was placed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.) concerned, who approved this suo-moto report of revenue official/Lekhpal on 12.01.2008 and in terms of this approval, patta was granted to the petitioner. 5. As per petitioner's case, she is in possession of the land in issue since then and at relevant point of time, she planted 100 trees of teak and 10 trees of mango and to establish this fact, Khasra of 1416 fasli has been placed on record by way of a supplementary affidavit filed in the Court today, which is taken on record. 6. 6. At this stage, on the basis of instructions received, learned State counsel says that the contention of petitioner's counsel is not correct as in fact there are 16 trees of Indian rosewood and 18 trees of teak over the land in issue. 7. In regard to aforesaid allotment in favour of petitioner, one Seema Khan (the then village Pradhan) instituted a case under Section 198(4) of the Act of 1950 registered as Case No. 59, in which, proper opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, as appears from the impugned order dated 08.01.2010. To clarify this aspect of the case, it is to be noted that the petitioner appeared before the Collector/District Magistrate, Balrampur in the case No. 59 and filed his objection and learned counsel for the parties were also heard before passing the impugned order dated 08.01.2010 in the said case by the Collector/District Magistrate, Balrampur and upon due consideration of the facts of the case, the respondent No. 3/Collector/District Magistrate, Balrampur passed the order dated 08.01.2010, whereby, he cancelled allotment in favour of the petitioner. The relevant portion of the order dated 08.01.2010 on reproduction reads as under:- 8. It would be relevant to indicate that plantation lease () should be granted/provided strictly in terms of procedure prescribed in Government Order (G.O.) dated 30.12.1985. This aspect has not been disputed by the petitioner. This G.O. provides procedure for allotment of plantation lease (). Relevant portion of which is quoted hereunder:- 9. Admittedly, in the instant case, the proposal for plantation lease () was not forwarded by the Village level Committee indicated in the G.O. dated 30.12.1985, to the concerned officer and directly the Lekhpal concerned suo-moto prepared a report for the purposes of granting/providing plantation lease () indicating therein only three names and the said report was placed before the S.D.M. concerned, who approved the report on 12.01.2008. Thus, admittedly the procedure prescribed in the G.O. dated 30.12.1985, under which plantation lease () can be granted, was not followed. This admitted position is undisputed. 10. It is well settled that if a particular thing is to be done in a particular manner then it should be done in that manner alone. 11. Thus, admittedly the procedure prescribed in the G.O. dated 30.12.1985, under which plantation lease () can be granted, was not followed. This admitted position is undisputed. 10. It is well settled that if a particular thing is to be done in a particular manner then it should be done in that manner alone. 11. A three Judge Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad; (1999) 8 SCC 266 , held as under: "17....................It is a well-settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. (See with advantage : Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor [(1935-36) 63 IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253 (2)], Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. [ AIR 1954 SC 322 : 1954 SCR 1098 ], State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [ AIR 1964 SC 358 : (1964) 1 SCWR 57].) An election petition under the rules could only have been presented in the open court up to 16-5-1995 till 4.15 p.m. (working hours of the Court) in the manner prescribed by Rule 6 (supra) either to the Judge or the Bench as the case may be to save the period of limitation. That, however, was not done................" 12. The said principle has been followed in Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh; (2015) 13 SCC 722 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "14. Where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner following a particular procedure, it shall be done in the same manner following the provisions of law, without deviating from the prescribed procedure............." 13. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) v. Abhilash Lal; (2020) 13 SCC 234 and OPTO Circuit India Limited v. Axis Bank; (2021) 6 SCC 707 has followed the said principle. 14. This Court finds that in the impugned order dated 08.01.2010, the respondent No. 3/Collector/District Magistrate, Balrampur has recorded specific findings to the effect that for the purposes of plantation lease (), the file has been prepared in violation of law. Reference in this regard can be made to condition 'Aa', 'Ba' and 'Da' indicated in the impugned order. 14. This Court finds that in the impugned order dated 08.01.2010, the respondent No. 3/Collector/District Magistrate, Balrampur has recorded specific findings to the effect that for the purposes of plantation lease (), the file has been prepared in violation of law. Reference in this regard can be made to condition 'Aa', 'Ba' and 'Da' indicated in the impugned order. Finding related to paddy crop in the impugned order finds support from Khasra filed before this Court by way of supplementary affidavit, in which also, Dhan/paddy crop is indicated under the heading 'Khareef'. 15. Considering the aforesaid including the fact that the procedure required to be followed was not followed while granting the patta to the petitioner, this Court is of the view that no interference is required in the order dated 08.01.2010. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid admitted position, this Court is also not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 02.01.2024. 16. So far as mentioning wrong provision is concerned, it settled principle of law that mere mentioning wrong provision or non-mentioning of a provision does not invalidate an order if the court and/or authority had the requisite jurisdiction therefor. In this view of the matter, the submission of counsel for the petitioner that under wrong provision, the Collector has exercised his power, has no force. 17. As per para 2 of G.O. dated 30.12.1985, Collector can cancel the patta if the same is not granted in terms of the scheme itself. In the instant case, admittedly the procedure was not followed and the Collector cancelled the patta. Thus, the argument of petitioner's counsel that patta in this case ought not have been cancelled by the Collector and if it was required to be cancelled on the ground of violation of terms of the lease, then the same can be cancelled by the S.D.M. concerned, is completely misplaced. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed.